Exactly. No matter what he cooks up, it is irrelevant.
Logic proves nothing in 2013.
In fact the most important discoveries of the last 100 years are non-intuitive, and "illogical", (Relativity, Uncertainty, some of the math of matricies).
The only thing left to rely on is evidence.
There is none for any god(s).

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(28-04-2013 02:00 PM)Egor Wrote: The purpose of me posting this is to vet it and work out the kinks. That means there are going to be some kinks, and I may be wrong. The argument may be an epic fail. I don't know at this point. So, I'll start. The idea came to me suddenly on Saturday, April 27, 2013, at 2:40 a.m. Here's the start of it.

Part one: Establishing Axioms

1. If something is unreal, it cannot support something that is real.

That is to say the unicorn's horn cannot be real, if the unicorn is not real. The ground the unicorn walks on cannot be real, if the unicorn is not real. The air around the unicorn cannot be real if the unicorn is not real, and so on.

2. Perception proves its reality.

That is to say that no matter if everything else is an illusion, if the illusion is perceived, that which perceives it must be real.

In the future, please post these in my I'm Drunk thread where they belong.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

(28-04-2013 03:33 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote: My problem with the "I think, therefore I am" mentality of #2 is that Descartes couldn't yet conceive of a world with advanced technology. Our ability to perceive and ponder and be self-aware is proof that we exist to Descartes. But what about artificial intelligence? A completely programmed personality with the ability to react and consider and think isn't yet perfected, and in movies it always seems to lead to global robot domination, but it's a legit concept. Once we are capable of making Portal-esque AI intelligence, existing only within the confines of a computer program, i.e. simulated reality, doesn't that make #2 incorrect?

I don't think you're following the axioms at all. It seems to me you're going off on a tangent.

(28-04-2013 04:02 PM)Egor Wrote: 4. That which is unreal can never be proven to be real.

There will always be a context in some manner in which the real thing should apply and does not. This I call, “necessary inconsistency” (or NI for short)

Doesn't that seem ironic that you include this in your argument FOR God?

It has nothing to do with God. If something is unreal, no matter how good the illusion of its reality, there will always be some way in which it should work, but doesn't. Imagine you are on a stage with a magician, and he takes a glass of water and pours it out, but when he tips it up it's full again. If that is real, then you should be able to fill a swimming pool with that glass of water, but you will find that you can't, because it's not really an endless glass of water. It fails in that context.

(28-04-2013 04:07 PM)Red Tornado Wrote: Doesn't that seem ironic that you include this in your argument FOR God?

It has nothing to do with God. If something is unreal, no matter how good the illusion of its reality, there will always be some way in which it should work, but doesn't. Imagine you are on a stage with a magician, and he takes a glass of water and pours it out, but when he tips it up it's full again. If that is real, then you should be able to fill a swimming pool with that glass of water, but you will find that you can't, because it's not really an endless glass of water. It fails in that context.

Please continue.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

(28-04-2013 09:41 PM)nach_in Wrote: Egor will use the broad sense of "real", "illusion" and all his fancy words and then he'll try to trick us into his own definition of those words, then he'll say that's a proof of god.

And all that word play just to explain a weird paramoecium he once saw.

I'm working on the next premise. I'm not sure if I have another axiom or if I want to state a premise, so probably tomorrow.

But listen to you--you just don't want to believe in God. Why? Because of sin. It's always because of sin. You're already saying that no matter what, no argument will ever convince you that God must exist, or in this case that God is necessarily real. Even with that, you won't stop your atheism. Why? because you want to sin. It's the only reason anyone is an atheist.

But I don't care. This argument will do only one thing: show that the statement "God is real" is necessarily true. After that, a person can "believe" whatever they want.

You all clamor for "evidence." Why? Because you're brain-dead. You want to sit staring at a burning bush, and you don't want to have to interpret anything. You want all your reasoning done for you. And you claim to be scientific, but even science doesn't work that way. In science you make observations--and then you do your best to make logical theories that fit those observations. In philosophy, you start out with true statements, and then you try to make theories based on those true statements. But you atheists don't want any of that.

You want to sit in front of the cross and watch Christ suffer and desperately try to convince yourself that if he were God, he'd come down off the cross. You want a sign, but even that won't do. You want continuous signs forever. You want God to serve you--you do not want to serve God. And why? Sin. Usually sexual sin to include abortion, then drugs, then deviant lifestyles, then hypocrisy, and on and on. You want to sin and God gets in the way. It's that simple.

(28-04-2013 09:41 PM)nach_in Wrote: Egor will use the broad sense of "real", "illusion" and all his fancy words and then he'll try to trick us into his own definition of those words, then he'll say that's a proof of god.

And all that word play just to explain a weird paramoecium he once saw.

I'm working on the next premise. I'm not sure if I have another axiom or if I want to state a premise, so probably tomorrow.

But listen to you--you just don't want to believe in God. Why? Because of sin. It's always because of sin. You're already saying that no matter what, no argument will ever convince you that God must exist, or in this case that God is necessarily real. Even with that, you won't stop your atheism. Why? because you want to sin. It's the only reason anyone is an atheist.

But I don't care. This argument will do only one thing: show that the statement "God is real" is necessarily true. After that, a person can "believe" whatever they want.

You all clamor for "evidence." Why? Because you're brain-dead. You want to sit staring at a burning bush, and you don't want to have to interpret anything. You want all your reasoning done for you. And you claim to be scientific, but even science doesn't work that way. In science you make observations--and then you do your best to make logical theories that fit those observations. In philosophy, you start out with true statements, and then you try to make theories based on those true statements. But you atheists don't want any of that.

You want to sit in front of the cross and watch Christ suffer and desperately try to convince yourself that if he were God, he'd come down off the cross. You want a sign, but even that won't do. You want continuous signs forever. You want God to serve you--you do not want to serve God. And why? Sin. Usually sexual sin to include abortion, then drugs, then deviant lifestyles, then hypocrisy, and on and on. You want to sin and God gets in the way. It's that simple.

I knew it. Projecting. "Sexual sin". The usual. He is saying without his Jebus HE would do whatever. It always comes down to this. Preverts, and their obcession with sex.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(28-04-2013 09:41 PM)nach_in Wrote: Egor will use the broad sense of "real", "illusion" and all his fancy words and then he'll try to trick us into his own definition of those words, then he'll say that's a proof of god.

And all that word play just to explain a weird paramoecium he once saw.

I'm working on the next premise. I'm not sure if I have another axiom or if I want to state a premise, so probably tomorrow.

But listen to you--you just don't want to believe in God. Why? Because of sin. It's always because of sin. You're already saying that no matter what, no argument will ever convince you that God must exist, or in this case that God is necessarily real. Even with that, you won't stop your atheism. Why? because you want to sin. It's the only reason anyone is an atheist.

But I don't care. This argument will do only one thing: show that the statement "God is real" is necessarily true. After that, a person can "believe" whatever they want.

You all clamor for "evidence." Why? Because you're brain-dead. You want to sit staring at a burning bush, and you don't want to have to interpret anything. You want all your reasoning done for you. And you claim to be scientific, but even science doesn't work that way. In science you make observations--and then you do your best to make logical theories that fit those observations. In philosophy, you start out with true statements, and then you try to make theories based on those true statements. But you atheists don't want any of that.

You want to sit in front of the cross and watch Christ suffer and desperately try to convince yourself that if he were God, he'd come down off the cross. You want a sign, but even that won't do. You want continuous signs forever. You want God to serve you--you do not want to serve God. And why? Sin. Usually sexual sin to include abortion, then drugs, then deviant lifestyles, then hypocrisy, and on and on. You want to sin and God gets in the way. It's that simple.

Ah, but there's where you're wrong, I'm quite open to hear arguments and evidence for the existence of god. But I don't trust you'll find any Egor.

You're so deep into the rabbit's hole you can't get out, all your life inside it, if you stop with your ludicrous delusion now you'll just realize you've wasted your life pursuing an explanation for a stupid paramoecium.

And god doesn't get in the way of me doing "sinful" acts, you're the only one in this forum so simple and unidimensional minded. I've been the most pious and god fearing boy you can imagine for many many years and I sinned the same way you sin. You're judgemental and prideful, but you don't consider that a sin, of course not! You're the prophet, so you can't sin, but everybody else does, anyone who even dares to think you might possibly be wrong is only because of sin.

I'll tell you a secret Ed, every single definition of sin, crime, deviant behaviour or whatever synonym you can find, has been made by a some group trying to dominate another. And that's all you are Egor, a power lusting, delusional and sad man, with no self esteem, trying to find a god to convince you that your life is worth of something. Well dude, tough luck, you won't find it, not because of people like me want to sin, not because the paramoecium was just a quirky little bug, but because there is no god.

The sooner you accept that simple and stupid reality and stop trying to prove the unreal, the sooner you'll be able to make your self-esteem a healthy one.

(28-04-2013 09:52 PM)Egor Wrote: In philosophy, you start out with true statements, and then you try to make theories based on those true statements.

That's true. But, philosophy not used in the manner of the scientific method is not philosophy... it's sophistry.

Syllogisms are a method of explaining the truth, not finding it. Therefore, before you can create a syllogism that simplifies the explanation of gods, you must first prove their existence.

That proof must come in the form of an exploration of evidence. Over the years, thousands of people have examined the evidence of gods and the conclusion drawn from those studies is that the evidence is all anecdotal and thus, that gods don't exist.

Moreover, even if the syllogism you present is logically sound, the being you're attempting to apply it to is logically contradictory and thus, renders your syllogism invalid in reference to said being.

In simple terms, unicorns could exist, because we know there are flying animals, horned animals and horns. However, if I describe to you a unicorn that flies underwater while at the same time running on the tops of clouds, I've described a logically contradictory animal. The latter is your god.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb